In light of the recent anti-Corona demonstrations (Stichwort #Aluhut), I feel almost compelled to post an older article I wrote about communication and the psychology of conspiracy theories.

CRISES AND INGREDIENTS

In times of crisis and upheaval conspiracy theories abound. When people experience unease and doubt, when old answers no longer seem to function or are challenged by societal change, when suspicions are born and everything seems relative and ambiguous, our brains yearn for unequivocal, clear-cut, black-and-white answers.

It would also appear that the decline of traditional media (Stichwort #gatekeeping), the advent of digital platforms prone to superficial scrolling, unreflected sharing and the viralization (!) of unchecked “facts” and ideologies, plus a generalized distrust of the establishment has given new impetus to conspiracy theorists around the world.

Let’s attempt to deconstruct conspiracy theories and have a look at their typical “ingredients” – of which there are three:

Intentionality – What this means is that a small and obscure minority (some “elite”, or representative thereof selected for scapegoating) is credited with intentionally organizing for a heinous purpose (usually, to exert complete control of the others).

Dualismor Dichotomy – The world is divided up in “good” (the unknowing majority) and “evil” (the scheming minority), without any consideration of intermediary nuances or disproving arguments.

Aside from these, there is also an emotionalization of the topic, which usually reinforces rejection of any rational argument to the contrary. Emotional contagion is usually below conscious awareness.

THE TROUBLE WITH DEEP-SEATED BELIEFS

Why is it so difficult to dislodge a strong emotional conviction with rational arguments? Well, because emotions are faster than explicit thinking, and because our intuition is often flawed. As we know from neuroscience, the task-positive (rational, analytical) and the default-mode (emotional, social) neural networks in the brain cannot really function simultaneously (they tend to suppress each other). But here are some other potential reasons:

For starters, people like to see themselves as acting consistently. Once beliefs become deep-seated (i.e. are perceived by their advocates as part of their identity), a phenomenon called “belief perseverance” occurs. People can conjure up a rationale for almost any belief they hold dear, even if it is false. Commitment to a certain belief is especially stronger after retelling (once we have championed an opinion in public, we can’t be seen to recant, right?)

When we use our intuition instead of good old reasoning about a topic, we also tend to get caught in the so-called “availability heuristic”, whereby salient, memorable and easy-to-picture events feel more likely. Illusory correlation is another issue. We imagine a relationship where none exists, or, even worse, confuse correlation and causation! As a result, we tend to find causes where we look for them. The old adage according to which we see only what we want to see has been confirmed by science.

Memory is also a very fragmentary thing: it can incorporate misinformation after the fact and play tricks on us. False recollections and false evaluations are often the result.

Psychological research also shows that when people’s minds are made up, not even a very strong argument can change them. This is called the “biased assimilation effect,” whereby we only give credence to evidence that fits with what we already believe. “Confirmation bias” (#informationbubble) is another reason people stick to their guns – we tend seek out information which confirms and reinforces our preconceptions – thereby feeling validated and encouraged to keep going down the same path.

Moods also play a role. Unhappy people, brooding, pessimistic or frustrated individuals tend to observe more negative details and dwell on those. People living in constant fear of a conspiracy against them tend to be more closed off to new or different possibilities, since fear is a negative emotional attractor.

There is also the touchy issue of overconfidence. As social psychologists put it, “incompetence breeds overconfidence.” Group influence also comes into play. The larger the group, the higher the arousal, the lower the self-awareness.

Finally, there is one factor we cannot overlook: individuation and the desire to be different. Wanting to belong to the “initiated few”, to feel special, to rise above the “herd” – as our secularized, over-communicated, stimulus-flooded, bureaucratic and automated world makes it increasingly difficult for true individuality to assert itself. Transcendence and access to ultimate meanings used to be the territory of religion. With that gone, things begin to morph.

tips for communication and dialogue

So, what about a possible solution? What about dialogue? How can someone go about engaging with these worldviews, and what should we consider when communicating with conspiracy theorists (this policeman here was on to something):

A recent study(“Political Extremism is Supported by an Illusion of Understanding”) has shown that asking people to provide mechanistic explanations can play a vital role in persuading them they are mistaken. People who are asked only to give “reasons” for their conviction (in other words, to focus on supporting and justifying it) do not change their views at all. The ones asked to explain how a certain policy would have effects, became, on average more moderate! Apparently, asking people to provide causal (mechanistic) explanations of how they think the world works causes many illusions to evaporate, undermining previous certainty. There has been a lot of talk lately of our societies veering towards “fact-free politics”. This might not come as such a surprise for psychologists, since causal reasons have been found to be more persuasive than statistics (see here).

Some social psychologists recommend getting people to think about a single reason why their theory might be flawed, while philosophers suggest trying to get them to surrender emotional attachment to the issue, by pointing out that it is not what defines who they are.

Scientists have also shown that strong arguments can be persuasive, but only when people are motivated to deliberate on the issue.

At any rate, when faced with such situations, avoid any stereotyped views of your “opponents”. Argue for the truth, not for the win – and against the point, not the person. Use tactical empathy, listen to their arguments and try to debunk them within their own inferential framework; analyze carefully – don’t let rage get the better of you! Use respect, logic, and back your argument with facts – and kindly ask the other party to do the same.

Over the weekend, a couple of my friends have watched Michael Moore’s latest documentary, Planet of the Humans. The one aspect that caused the most bewilderment among them seems to be the rhetorical element. They were literally shaken that what had appeared to them a solid reality was perhaps nothing more than a web of words.

LABELS AND PHRASEOLOGY

Take the term “biomass” for instance. Many people are shocked to realize it can also refer to… wood – as in trees and forests, something you would normally associate with the “planet’s lungs”, certainly not something you’d think is a great thing to burn (on top of everything else we’re already burning). And yes, it does include garbage and landfill gas, but also crops and other types of fuels.

“Such is the power of names…” one of my friends mused. “Using a label to deceive the population and to do it gracefully.” And certainly, she was on to something here. While words by themselves – and especially the meanings and connotations they develop – are certainly enough to evoke mental concepts and a psychological reality, imagine coupling them with additional signs that anchor and reinforce that meaning: the fresh green of lush vegetation or the heavenly blue of the clear, unpolluted sky. Such logos can become nearly irresistible. And propaganda often relies on formulaic language to promote limited thinking.

CONSTRUCTING REALITY

“In the beginning, there was the Word“, the book of Genesis proclaims. As homo significans, we’ve been creating and assigning meaning for as long as we have existed. When one connotation is used and reiterated often enough, sheer repetition has the potential to establish that particular interpretation as the only “normal” or “natural” one, so much so that it becomes “unchallengeable commonsense” (Barker and Galasinski, 2001). Such stable connotations are called “myths” (see Barthes, 1977) and are often employed to “purify” things, or to simplify an otherwise complex reality.

According to Chomsky and others, our reality is socially constructed, and we do this by deletion, distortion and generalization. Not even photographs are true analogons of reality (again, Barthes): in fact they are a staged reduction of reality, and they, too, can carry cultural codes (or reinforce the linguistic message.)

In our Judeo-Christian map of meaning, Adam was granted by God the right to name the animals. With it came great responsibility. Linguistics 101 usually teaches us that language is an arbitrary system of symbols. According to Ferdinand de Saussure himself, signs are arbitrary, i.e. the relationship between signifier and signified is arbitrary. Why is, after all, the thing “tree” called “Baum” in German, “arbre” in French, and “copac” in Romanian? Even reading Shakespeare above, one is inclined to believe that words develop naturally starting from an undeniable, tangible, immediate and shared physical reality, simply by uttering some sound pattern.

And that may well have been the case at the very beginning of language. But then came Aristotle and others – and classical rhetoric let the genie out of the bottle. We realized we can exploit word choice, figures of speech, and compositional techniques to make an impression. Then came modern psychology with its in-depth work on persuasion. The post-structuralists and deconstructionists claimed that language not only reflects, but actively shapes the world. That we have no access to a fixed landmark outside of linguistic processing; that all reality is textual.

IMPERFECT COMMUNICATION: DISCURSIVE PRACTICES AND GATEKEEPERS

So, is language still arbitrary? If all reality is textual, and if a certain signifier is enough to evoke a particular signified (i.e. a psychological reality) for which, perhaps, very little or no “objective” physical basis exists, how can we protect ourselves? How alert must we be, how far must we go in questioning everything? Are we living in the post-truth era? Is everything fake? Or are manipulation and misunderstanding built into human communication? Are the encoding and decoding of the same message always bound to deliver two different results, based on the participants’ different codification systems?

Does the way texts are produced and consumed nowadays make us more or less prone to propaganda? Following Bourdieu (1991), Donald Matheson in Media Discourses – Analyzing Media Texts talks about the “oracular power of dominant institutions in society”, and about the “power of media institutions as self-appointed representatives of the masses”. The meanings found in the media are shared, he says, but the power to create those meanings is not. “Authoritative discourses” are those ways of speaking and representing phenomena that have come to seem obvious to us. As gatekeepers, media outlets often control what is newsworthy. But do they also actively assign meaning and/or help exclude alternative interpretations? Who “owns” the interpretation, after all? Where does it all start and how far can it go? And what about the silicon “myth”: that computer chips are basically produced from sand, something we have endless amounts of?

JARGON, TERMINOLOGY – AND PERCEPTION

According to Carol Cohn (1987), language is fully capable of distorting perception; adopting the terminology often means unwittingly buying into the ideology (see also “clean bombs” and “surgical strikes” in the work she did on euphemisms in defense circles). As she hears herself utter the words, the speaker’s perception changes. Euphemisms, acronyms, labels all conjure up a new, more harmless reality before her.

When a term like “biomass” appears, is this an honest attempt at describing something that has an equivalent in the physical world – a perfectly legitimate name for a big lump of biological material, containing various amounts of each of its constituents, therefore difficult to describe more precisely? Or are we already talking about politically or economically-motivated linguistic engineering? Let’s have a look at the morphemes it comprises: “bio”, which has the dictionary meaning of “relating to life, of living beings”, has a positive, vital connotation; while “mass” – “a large body of matter with no definite shape”, with its inferred plenty (even surplus) seems amorphous and uninteresting enough to keep us from investigating further… The desired connotation would not have a hard time asserting itself. Well, who can tell? You be the judge of that.

So, are words only intermediaries used to hide or distort reality? Probably not. Yet they have the potential to deceive and sway. Can verbal communication ever be 100% “truthful”, or is it fundamentally flawed, a mere screen placed between non-communicable psychological realities, a play of light and shadows, a mask? Or a form of contagion? Is our physical reality really so complex that we cannot be trusted with it? Are we unable to make sense of it without some form of simplifying narrative put forward by “gatekeepers” or “elites”? Or is our access to reality inherently truncated? Are the battles of the future the battles for our mind and soul, or have they always been?

P.S. An additional example of dominant discourses and the power to define things: in a draft proposal the EU has recently excluded oil and gas from the definition of “fossil fuels”. More information here or here.

#linguistics #register #codes #semiotics #mediaanalysis #discourse

]]>cropped-pexels-photo-41.jpgandreeasepiWhat My Kids Have Taught Me About Engagementhttps://yourtranscreator.com/2020/04/30/what-my-kids-have-taught-me-about-engagement/
Thu, 30 Apr 2020 11:54:00 +0000http://yourtranscreator.com/?p=7430Continue reading What My Kids Have Taught Me About Engagement→]]>Are you also juggling job, homeschooling of children, creative projects, and research? Are your kids constantly coming to you for advice/support/validation/reassurance even though your spouse is also available? And does that drive you mad? Then you can relate.

Now, I’ve racked my brain trying to understand this, until it hit me. It’s a communication and reputation management issue. Relax, I’m not about to tell you that you’re doing something wrong. Quite the opposite, congratulations are probably in order: the reason your kids behave like this might be because they perceive you as the “go-to” authority on many issues, and that means you’ve built a lot of trust capital (or goodwill).

REPUTATION AS INSEPARABLE FROM ENGAGEMENT

How did that happen? In my case the answer is ENGAGEMENT. As the parent who is virtually always there (home office), and because I take a constant interest in their education, dreams and grievances, I am seen as reliable. Because I hold myself to the same high standards that I expect from others, and believe in problem solving – I am seen as competent (I always manage to find a solution, rather than adopt a passive, indifferent attitude). And because we are constantly communicating on a meaningful level (i.e. I express both clear expectations and can soothe or help out when problems arise) – while my husband’s busy schedule away from home makes interactions with them more erratic – I am seen as credible (i.e., my opinions and evaluations have come to carry more weight). In other words, they TRUST me.

Now, I realize I’m bragging. But the point is, this holds true whether you are an individual or a business: when customers are “nagging”, it is usually because they have invested trust capital in you and expect you to have a solution to their problems. That is a pretty positive thing, wouldn’t you agree? You should be happy to be part of the conversation, instead of being criticized behind your back. And you should do your best to steer that conversation and keep it going, and grow your presence and your brand.

HOW TO ENGAGE

Long story short, engaging with customers and stakeholders consistently and reliably, with authenticity and honesty, can do wonders for your reputation. What you need is regular content that deals with your stakeholders’ pains openly and honestly and reflects a genuine concern for their satisfaction. Create a sense of community around your brand. You need consistent messaging, transparency, clarity, empathy, customer orientation and customer-oriented storytelling.

Be fascinating, by all means, and showcase your competencies as often as you can. But be open and frank about those situations where your product is not the ideal solution for a client’s needs or when your business is going through a rough patch – highlight what you are doing to fix that, bring a strong vision and good project management to back it up. Engage everyone, including naysayers. Resist combative impulses and admit mistakes – not in a robotic, run-of-the-mill standardized fashion that says “you’re a number to me” or “I’m just going through the motions” – but handling reality and encouraging dialogue, genuinely searching for solutions. Don’t whitewash everything or gloss over difficult aspects. In general, people can sense when they’re put on a diet of “cheap excuses” and appreciate truthful explanations (Don’t you like being trusted with the truth? Doesn’t that make you feel respected? Besides, hush-ups have a way of coming back to haunt you.)

give me something real!

In my opinion, and the opinion of others (read more here and here), the hard sell is history. People feel and understand when they’re being taken advantage of and instrumentalized. They are wary of “spin doctors” and manipulation. Marketing, in a nutshell, is about human nature, about understanding what people really want, what they crave for, and treating them as you would treat your family or your circle of friends.

Speak like a real person, be yourself – the best version of that, but still authentic. Deliver on your promises and truly contribute – not only as a “PR stunt”, but consistently and steadily, and because you truly believe in the cause. The best word wizard can’t always conceal the inconsistencies of your real actions, and any amount of varnish quickly peels off in a shitstorm. Understanding your audiences requires that you really care, and that you do your homework. If you don’t put in the effort, people will disengage – and possibly drag others away with them.

Remember, trust is hard to earn and easily squandered. Make sure you truly value your buyers, partners and end users, and that your communications (and actions) reflect this!

Any questions? YourTranscreator is always happy to help with market and media research, cultural and communication consulting, transcreation, training, and more.

]]>customer-experience-3024488_1920andreeasepiWays Out of the Lockdown: 4 Types of Discursive Strategieshttps://yourtranscreator.com/2020/04/24/ways-out-of-the-lockdown-4-types-of-discursive-strategies/
Fri, 24 Apr 2020 16:05:20 +0000http://yourtranscreator.com/?p=7366Continue reading Ways Out of the Lockdown: 4 Types of Discursive Strategies→]]>To say that words are powerful, that they influence thought and perception, and engender representations is a truism. Their force and importance is uncontested. Sometimes it is the case, however, that a new physical context emerges before we even have a concept for it. And for it to become a psychological reality, a perceptible reality that we can position ourselves with respect to, it first needs to be articulated. The topic of political rhetoric and the “manufacturing of consent” as Chomsky puts it is a delicate and complex one. Austrian linguist Ruth Wodak, for instance, distinguishes between four types of discursive strategies:

constructive strategies, used to articulate and construct a new identity, course of action, ideological framework.

(Or, as Wodak et al. describe in another paper on micro-level communication, to develop shared views on strategic issues, strategies such as (re)defining, equalizing, simplifying, legitimating and reconciling can be used.)

Having said this, a quick look at the linguistic strategies employed to construct the new corona realities, to motivate and justify the measures taken and to prepare the next steps in the action plan allows a few basic observations:

Naming something makes it real and concrete. To construct a threat and make it credible (as a preliminary condition for modifying behavior), one first needs to define it: to give a name to the threat. In this case, we went through a variety of names, depending on audience, situation, register, and intent of the communicator: coronavirus, Covid-19, SARS-Cov-2, but also the “Wuhan virus”, the “Chinese virus”, which signals an attempt at assigning responsibility and blame. (Given that one of the social sources of prejudice is the institutional one, this is significant in terms of propaganda.) But other realities also emerged: “lockdown” itself (see title above – y’all knew right away what I meant, didn’t you?), “social distancing”, “self-isolation”, “quarantine”, “hoarding / panic buying” (or the lovely German counterpart “Hamsterkäufe”), “sneezing in one’s elbow” are all pretty much new realities that needed a name to represent them – and were given one.

Illustrations and graphic imagery were also used to help interpret and reinforce the verbal element, but also to “simplify” understanding: just think of the visual representation of the virus (the little spiked ball), the exponential graphs of new cases or the horrifying footage of coffins lined up in churches, the exhausted faces of medical staff in protective suits. Statistics expressed in absolute numbers, especially the soaring number of deaths, were a staple of the daily news cycle, and served the same purpose.

In terms of preservative and justificatory strategies, to maintain the threat as a palpable and relevant reality in people’s perceptions, and to nudge behavior, let us mention the constant monitoring and mapping of the spread of the illness around the globe, the recurrent and somber warnings from persons and institutions of authority (both national and international) calling it a serious epidemic, then a pandemic, the inclusion of ever more medical details and case statistics as these became available. Virologists received ample air time and were able to impact public discourse, public opinion, and political decision-making. To add an emotional element (emotions are often motivational), frightening and cautionary survivor reports began circulating in the media. Visualizing the consequences (of contagion) and instilling fear is essential for changing attitudes, influencing behavior, and reducing the likelihood of dissent. A new name was developed to link the virus to the SARS outbreak a few years back, and to signal that it is very serious. Reports about the lack of protective equipment, ventilators, and intensive care beds in hospitals became a daily occurrence. The focus was on the scarcity of these products on the world markets as a result of an exceptional event, not on the decision makers’ lack of foresight in provisioning hospitals (despite epidemiologists having warned of this danger long ago). The focus of the media was almost entire on Covid-19, carving out this element of noveltyand danger in the panoply of human illnesses and completely ignoring others (an interesting article on the “cult of safety” and how to integrate additional information to broaden the perspective – here.)

To justify the radical measures taken to avoid a cataclysmic spread (the drastic limiting of social gatherings, the closing of borders, and military-style restrictions on movement), the sheer repetition of the imminent threat to human life and to society as a whole was a major factor. To bring the population on board, these actions had to be framed as crucial, life-saving, and inevitable; violations were associated with large fines and public opprobrium in order to guarantee compliance. At the same time, a sense of trust and hope in the future had to be instilled, by assuring people that obedience will bring the situation quickly under control. This was achieved, among other things, by creating a new sense of collective effort, of responsibility and reciprocity, through the repeated use of personal pronouns such as “we” and “us”. Remember the “we are here for you, stay home for us” memes? Or the recurring slogan “Together against the coronavirus”? Respect for the medical profession skyrocketed. Doctors and medical staff dealing with Covid-19 patients began to be referred to as heroes, as were those employees in critical (and, until recently, undervalued) jobs, such as supermarket staff, sanitation workers, delivery men, people working in the food industry or agriculture.

Depending on cultural proclivities and personal style, some leaders (such as Macron and Trump) appealed to their people using a dramatic “war” metaphor – which often leads to a preference for tough action to bludgeon the enemy and an acceptance of sacrifice, in the hope that we will quickly “win” and rise again. Angela Merkel used a softer, but very effective appeal to solidarity, caution, and steady prevention, which attempted to inoculate people against selfish actions and appealed to the individual’s need for safety, trust and belonging. In the UK, initial minimization of the problem gave way to a rallying around an iconic and valued public institution (NHS) that is threatened by collapse and needs saving (“Save our NHS”). Subsidy packages were also approved with record speed to reassure the business environment and the employees that their economic future is safe if only they abide by the restrictions and keep the health system safe as well.

Once the daily bombardment with the grim statistics of death petered out, it became clear the narrative was entering a new stage, the stage of economic concerns, and discourses focused on these. President Trump began to talk about the “cure being worse than the disease”; other actors showed that a brutal recession also threatens lives and livelihoods and can develop into another type of emergency. Poverty, financial insecurity and the mental health issues generated by isolation were introduced into the current sanitary equation, as were concerns over rising inequality and domestic violence. Economic and financial experts, business representatives and psychologists began to replace virologists and epidemiologists on the front pages of newspapers, politicians vied to be the first to resume “business as usual”. The new narrative moved towards a preparation for the next steps in the management of the crisis – in search of a broader concept of well-being, which includes employment and income security. At this stage, the strategy is to replace fear for one’s health with a willingness to go back to work, to enter stores, send one’s children to school. To transform the narrative, new elements must be introduced: compulsory masks (the German “Maskenpflicht”: a huge transformation from the initial claim that masks don’t help – back when they weren’t available – to a repetition of how even artisanal, non-medical masks are quite useful), physical distance, hygiene as good enough solutions. German politicians, for instance, have taken up the use of the phrase “under control” to show that the situation is becoming stable and manageable again. This is part of reconciling health needs with economic needs.

Other transformative strategies include talk of the ensuing economic crisis being “worse than the Great Depression” (turning the fear against a new “enemy”), and the use of statistics to evidence the downward trend in new infections. Reports of vaccines being developed and appeals by politicians (see U. von der Leyen) to support the development and worldwide distribution of vaccines/treatments intensified. The race is on for manufacturing renewed hope and popular acceptance of compulsory vaccinations once these become available. The supposed impatience of the public also began to be more widely discussed in the media, as businesses were bearing the brunt.

The pandemic has not been without its destructive strategies either (see, for one, the negationists: Belarus, the Brasilian president, even Trump at first; then also the conspiracy theorists, the trolls spreading “alternative” medical facts and using social media networks to become, themselves, viral).

Do you have anything to add, any particular issues you have noticed in your part of the world? I’d love to hear from you.

It remains to be seen how all of this will play out in the end, and the impact it will have on media institutions, communication patterns, social relations, consumer behavior, businesses, and political establishments. One thing is clear: well-thought out, steady, consistent and coherent communication (the right amount of information at the right time and without too much hesitation; inclusive and honest communication; managing the message properly; having a clear strategy and a timeline of gradual change – rather than hectic back-and-forth and a frenzy of contradictory messages) is key for reassuring the public and for the credibility of politicians and institutions.

Stay healthy!

P.S. For speakers of Romanian, here’s a funny take on the new terminology brought forth by the coronavirus epidemic – including a few representative memes Thanks, Voicu!

The importance of a good translation, i.e. of a good, faithful rendering of the original into a new language is something most people would agree about. Quotes such as Jose Saramago’s: “Writers make national literature, while translators make universal literature” are an elixir for anyone who is serious about translation as a career.

But how does one define a “good” translation? As intercultural communication specialists, we are often humbled by contrary opinions, like this one expressed by Cervantes: “Translating from one language to another (…), is like looking at Flemish tapestries from the wrong side, for although the figures are visible, they are covered by threads that obscure them, and cannot be seen with the smoothness and color of the right side.” Not to mention the one in today’s blog title (see above)…

Getting it Just Right

Can a translation ever be a true and faithful copy of the original? How much duty of loyalty do we actually owe to the original words and how much to their author’s (presumed) intent? How are we to understand Maurice Coindreau’s observation that, “Firstly, a translator is a person with no rights, only duties. He must show loyalty to the author like a dog, but as a special dog who behaves like a monkey.” If I’m not mistaken, Mauriac wrote: “The novelist is God’s monkey.” Well, the translator is the novelist’s monkey. He is obliged to pull the same faces, like it or not.” And how are we, as creative types, able to reconcile that with our purpose/need/role to knead, mold and adjust the message to the target audience or the contemporary ethos? After all, we are in the business of producing “the right talk/text at the right time”, and that, as Dell Hymes puts it, “requires sociocultural knowledge” and its application.

Creativity in Translation?

Knowing just how much creativity is allowed in a translation depends first and foremost on the customer’s brief, but when a dialogue with the author(s) is impossible, there are a few other clues to go by. The situation and its typical norms of interaction, the participants, the goal or purpose of communication, the way and order in which things are expressed, the manner in which the communication is being carried out, its channel or medium, the genre to which the text belongs to all carry different but significant weights in analyzing and interpreting a text or in justifying linguistic choices.

A good communicator (and a translator should be a particularly gifted one) must be aware that he or she mediates between “homo significans”. According to Chandler’s Semiotics, we are all meaning makers through the creation and interpretation of signs. A word is a sign, but so is an image, a photograph, the things in the photograph, the typeface, font and layout of the text etc. Meaning is created along two different axes: the syntagmatic (the linear, “functional” one of arranging signs in a certain order to create well-formed sentences and intelligible texts) and the paradigmatic axis.

A Matter of Combining Signs

The syntagmatic axis should be a no-brainer for anybody with in-depth language competence. But it is often on the paradigmatic one, the axis of mutually-exclusive word choices, that most battles are waged on the translation front. Lots of delicate questions arise: Why did the author pick one word over the other? Decisions must be made: What connotations and personal interpretations will be added to the translation by the choice of one synonym over another? It is the paradigmatic axis that often gives insight into the adopted register, with its choice of vocabulary, degree of formality, and acceptable level of variation. Some registers are highly technical and closed, on wrong term can cause the entire text to lose credibility. Others are open and less specialized.

What is the subject matter? What is the relationship between writer and reader? What is the preferred mode of interaction – in writing or orally? What goal does the author pursue? How is this particular category of text usually consumed by the target audience? All of these details matter when producing text. With translation, the added complication of connecting two different cultural realms (with their differing myths and representations) enters the equation. Cultural awareness is key. It helps anchor the text, stabilize it, intuit the most likely interpretation.

In transcreation, word for word translation is excluded; our duty lies with the paradigm; recreating the intended interpretation, reaction or response becomes imperative. Empathy and updated knowledge of local realities and ideological shifts are essential to position readers and perform cultural adaptations of intertextual clues. This is particularly tricky when translating ads for national markets that are far apart in terms of socio-economic development and cultural traditions – and where sign ambiguity is a real issue.

The Cultural Equation

Globalization has allowed more people to tune in to the discussion, but has by no means leveled their systems of signs. A good translator is, therefore, always a keen cultural researcher, a marketer, a linguistic detective and – quite often – an actor: someone who interprets, elucidates and clarifies. A good translator should be, above all, a good, careful reader in the sense mentioned by Alberto Manguel: “He or she can pull a text to pieces, remove its skin, cut it to the bone, follow each artery and vein and thence fashion a new living being.” A creator, after all. Not just a coroner.

Can this new text, this new living being, walk and talk and embrace the target reader? Does it have life, depth, breadth? Can it engage? How will it survive another taking apart – that of the end reader, when he or she attempts to make sense of it? Is it understandable? Is it decipherable without being duplicitous? And will it keep people listening or turning the page? How medium-dependent is its structure? Social psychology has proven that the only medium where the intelligibility of content actually increases as it becomes more complex is the written text. In other words, keep videos and audios fairly simple and use a written article (like this one!) for elaborate explanations and complicated concepts.

So, you see, when commissioning a text, a piece of “content”, or a translation, questions abound and they don’t have simple answers. Rely on competent and passionate linguists, who see beyond the mechanics of literal translation, who understand how successful texts are put together, and are happy to dig deeper to get your whole personality across in vivid color.

Do you have any questions? YourTranscreatoris happy to assist with professional and creative translation, media and market research, and intercultural project support.

Stay safe!

#translation #interculturalcommunication #research #projectsupport

]]>andreeasepiSocial Distancing? 7 Communication Tips for Maintaining Relationshipshttps://yourtranscreator.com/2020/04/08/social-distancing-7-communication-tips-for-maintaining-relationships/
Wed, 08 Apr 2020 10:22:15 +0000http://yourtranscreator.com/?p=7166Continue reading Social Distancing? 7 Communication Tips for Maintaining Relationships→]]>So, you are now in your second, third, or possibly even fourth week of social isolation. These times are tough on everyone (but more so on extroverts). On top of that, watching the news is like a bucket of negative emotions being dumped on your head on a daily basis, the future feels uncertain at best, and even the memes have lost their humorous potential… you miss your friends, colleagues, partners, interactions… Perhaps you are separated from your loved ones… What can you do?

Well, here are a few communication tips that can help you manage long-distance relationships better.

First, be sure to stay in touch with your social network. Remain present, offer support and advice (when requested) – even if only from afar – but remember that your intuitions might be wrong. For instance, we tend to give more credit to readily available, very salient or memorable information! Try to keep an open mind! Most importantly, keep the conversation going. Pick up the phone and call, or use one of those great video-conferencing apps to share a smile and add beauty to their lives.

And here we come to suggestion number two: Stay positive. And what better way to do that than by bringing positive emotions to others. Don’t be pedantical, don’t whine or complain too much, and refrain from all those pessimistic predictions you were about to make. Remain optimistic: a strong mental state is an important ally in the fight against isolation or disease! Be aware of the fact that your moods affect your perceptions and judgment!

If you are in a long-distance relationship right now, it is essential to reassure the other person of your appreciation. Make sure they know, feel and understand how much you cherish them. Para-linguistic cues, such as tone of voice, pace, rhythm, pitch are crucial. Remember that speaking a little more softly and slowly can work wonders, and that a low, husky pitch often feels more reassuring and erotic. Write your loved ones a few kind and expressive words every day.

Open up and use language that helps maintain intimacy. Reveal personal details and ask deep, meaningful questions with open answers, be empathetic, listen actively and expansively. Use “we”, “us” to create a sense of togetherness, and pick up on the last 2-3 words of your interlocutor’s answer to ask a new question and get them to open up more. Be interested and build conversation bridges for later. For instance, by planning your day together or sharing activities (see below).

Share daily routines, tasks and activities on- and offline. If you cannot go for a walk together, because your are in two different physical locations, at least go for a walk at about the same time, and then meet up online to share your experiences.

If you must fight, resolve to do so after the lock-down is over, face-to-face, or at the very worst via Skype, Zoom or some other app where you can see each other’s faces. Countless signals and loads of non-verbal communication cues will go lost if you don’t, thus adding to the conflict. Remember, many of us are in a state of arousal at the moment, and that tends to cloud our judgment at times.

Last, but definitely not least, be a good listener. Listening is the most important part of every conversation! Do not hog the floor, don’t overshare, and don’t diminish other people’s experiences (remember, they might be experiencing a different environment and reality)! Weather, social, political and economic conditions vary and they all impact perception. Depending on where they are in the world, people are subjected to different information flows or sources of stress. No wonder their moods, opinions or interpretations of events may be very dissimilar to yours. Show understanding and make a point to always end on a positive note! (I am suddenly reminded of that wonderful book by Milena Busquets, This Too Shall Pass…)

Social distancing should not mean social isolation. In fact, as someone aptly pointed out, the term is somewhat of a misnomer: it is more about physical distancing than about cutting off social connections. And to maintain meaningful connection, we absolutely must communicate. Articulate, refined communication is what sets humans apart from other species. At the best and at the worst of times, quality communication is essential.

If you need powerful words to convey your message across borders, or research to understand how your audience is holding up or how your target market is evolving right now, YourTranscreator is here to help.

]]>andreeasepiCovid-19 Update: How Can We Help?https://yourtranscreator.com/2020/03/24/covid-19-update-how-can-we-help/
Tue, 24 Mar 2020 10:16:46 +0000http://yourtranscreator.com/?p=7122Continue reading Covid-19 Update: How Can We Help?→]]>Hello! I hope you are all keeping well. The coronavirus outbreak has everyone worried.

These are difficult and trying times for all of us. Reading the future has become nearly impossible. Large swaths of industry have come to a standstill and the economic outlook is “chilly” to say the least. To successfully tackle this crisis and remain optimistic, we need to rely on each other more than ever.

YourTranscreator would like to know what our customers need at the moment and how we can be of assistance in the months to come.

How can we best support you, your projects and your organization with bespoke communication solutions, remote project management services and smooth intercultural communication? What are your current needs and how do you see the market developing? What and how do you need to communicate to your stakeholders right now and in the near future?

Ever since Aristotle, and probably way before that, our world has been both aware of and fascinated by the hypnotic power of words. Our word choices and how we put them together to create context and meaning, social representations and myths are a huge influence on our thoughts, attitudes and behaviors.

Just how much our thought processes are in thrall to vocabulary and word choices has been a matter of debate in the linguistic community since Sapir and Whorf first came up with their hypotheses. While there is little evidence that language completely determines thinking (we are, after all, physical creatures and get a variety of non-verbal inputs from our environments as well), research has shown that language indeed influences thought to a considerable extent.

When exposed to the euphemistic register of defense circles, which includes talk of “neutralizing” instead of killing opponents and “surgical strikes” that seem laudably therapeutic and precise, researcher Carol Cohn found her own perceptions were being gradually distorted. Employing the same language made her perspective change as it became more difficult to stay connected to previous concerns. To learn to speak a language, as she put it, is not just adding new vocabulary, but “entering a new mode of thinking”. “We must give careful attention to language,” she warned, “and what it allows us to think as well as say.” Isn’t it funny how, in the words of another researcher, “we” always have “an army, reporting restrictions and press briefings” while “they” have “a war machine, censorship and propaganda”? (Richardson, 2007). To learn and use a language, is the transformative process of learning to think in it, “to accept its constraints, assumptions and axioms”.

In the words of Dell Hymes, “producing the right talk at the right time requires sociocultural knowledge.” Only when aware of and capable of handling the “cultural baggage” does one attain true “communicative competence”.

Shaping Perceptions

So are words ever neutral? Or are they fraught with persuasive intent and subtle connotation? And can they ever “mean what they’re trying to say at”? (Addie Bundren in Faulkner’s “As I Lay Dying”). As it turns out, language is also a social practice, an instrument we use to forge identities and allegiances. Communicating is never purely informative. Schulz von Thun’s 4-ear model identifies at least three other functions of human communication that you should be aware of.

Have you ever considered how texts are put together, how images and linguistic messages complete, “anchor” and reinforce each other, or how things are framed to give a certain impression? It’s fascinating business. Our minds are extremely suggestible. And while within a certain culture meanings are shared, the power to create and disseminate those meanings is not!

Have you ever stopped to ponder, upon reading the news, why certain metaphors are chosen, what register is being used, what myths and preconceptions they draw upon and who is trying to propagate which worldview? Or would you like to know how your own communication is perceived in certain circles and what the way you speak conveys about your deeply held beliefs and attitudes? And what do social psychology and the confirmation bias have to do with it all?

For these questions and more, you can always enlist the help of a good media analyst and communication consultant, right here. Until then, live well and keep reflecting!

]]>andreeasepiLanguage Quote of the Dayhttps://yourtranscreator.com/2020/02/18/language-quote-of-the-day/
Tue, 18 Feb 2020 13:40:05 +0000http://yourtranscreator.com/?p=7099Continue reading Language Quote of the Day→]]>“How can we ever come to an understanding if I put in the words I utter the sense and value of things as I see them, while you (…) must inevitably translate them according to the conception of things each one of you has within himself.”

Pirandello.

#interpersonalcommunication is #interculturalcommunication

#corporatecommunication is #interculturalcommunication

Any thoughts?

]]>andreeasepiIs There Such a Thing as “Untranslatable”?https://yourtranscreator.com/2019/11/07/is-there-such-a-thing-as-untranslatable/
Thu, 07 Nov 2019 15:12:41 +0000http://yourtranscreator.com/?p=7070Continue reading Is There Such a Thing as “Untranslatable”?→]]>Are there any truly untranslatable words?

The short answer is: No.

The long answer: It depends on your definition of “untranslatable”.

Given that different cultures code things differently, it is a fact of life that every language contains at least a handful of words for which no equivalent word exists in another language. But fear not! Even the meaning of so-called “untranslatable” words can be conveyed through equivalent phrases or sentences.

Take for instance this cute little illustrated book I discovered at my local library today. It’s called Lost in Translation, by Ella Frances Sanders. Here are a few examples from German that have made my day – I hope you enjoy them too:

“Drachenfutter” (literally, dragon fodder) = a gift from a husband to his wife when he wants to appease her (for instance, after having forgotten their anniversary!); a kind of atonement.